U.G.Hospitals P.Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors

advertisement in the newspapers dated 14th and 15th June,

2005, inviting applications for allotment of a hospital

plot measuring 12 acres in Sector 23A, Gurgaon, and a

hospital plot measuring 8.3 Acres in Sector 51, Gurgaon,

from persons interested on or before 29.6.2005. In response

to the said advertisement, the appellant applied for the

hospital plot in Sector 51 on 28.6.2005. The fifth

respondent applied on 15.6.2005 (said to have been received

by the HUDA on 27.6.2005) for allotment of the hospital

plot in Sector 23A, stating that if they were not allotted

2

the plot in Sector 23A, their application may be considered

for allotment of the plot in Sector 51.

3. By re-advertisement dated 7.7.2005, the last date for

submission of applications was extended upto 20.7.2005 with

a clarification that those who had applied earlier in

response to the advertisement dated 14/15.6.2005 need not

apply again. The fifth respondent gave a letter dated

18.7.2005 to HUDA stating that on physical verification it

was found that the plot in Sector 23A was only 8.66 acres

and not 12 acres and there was also some difficulties in

regard to use of the entire plot for construction and

therefore, their application may be considered for

allotment of the plot in Sector 51.

4. Both the advertisements required the applicants to

apply for allotment in the form prescribed in the

advertisements. While the application of fifth respondent

dated 15.6.2005 for the plot in Sector 23A was in the

prescribed form, the subsequent letter dated 18.7.2005

seeking allotment of the plot in Sector 51 was not an

application in the prescribed form, but was only a request

letter. After considering the applications, HUDA allotted

3

the plot at Sector 51 to the fifth respondent. The

appellant was not allotted any plot. The plot at Sector 23A

was not allotted to any one.

5. In pursuance of such allotment, the fifth respondent

obtained sanction of a building plan on 25.4.2006 and

completed the construction of hospital building in July,

2007. A deed of conveyance dated 19.7.2007 was executed in

favour of the fifth respondent in regard to the plot at

Sector 51. The fifth respondent's hospital is stated to be

functioning in the plot at Sector 51, from 2007 itself.

6. In April, 2007, the appellant filed a writ petition

for quashing the allotment letter dated 27.9.2005 issued in

favour of the fifth respondent in regard to allotment of

the hospital plot at Sector 51 and seeking a direction to

the HUDA and the State to allot the said plot at Sector 51

in its favour. Alternatively the appellant prayed that the

vacant hospital plot at Sector 23A may be allotted to it.

The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by

impugned order dated 1.12.2008, on the ground that there

was considerable delay in filing the writ petition

challenging the allotment in favour of the fifth

respondent. The High Court also found that there was no

4

irregularity in allotting the plot in Sector 51 to the

fifth respondent. It held that the appellant who had

participated in the process of allotment without

questioning the same, could not challenge the allotment in

favour of the fifth respondent. The said order is

challenged in this appeal by special leave.

7. The appellant contends that the application for

allotment by the fifth respondent was in regard to the

hospital plot in Sector 23A and the letter given on

18.7.2005 could not be considered as an application for

allotment of plot at Sector 51. It was submitted that HUDA

ought to have allotted the plot at Sector 23A to fifth

respondent and plot at Sector 51 to the appellant as per

their respective applications. It was contended that by

allotting the plot at Sector 51 to fifth respondent even

though its application was for allotment of plot at Sector

23A, HUDA committed an irregularity, thereby denying the

appellant to its legitimate claim for allotment of a plot.

It is further contended that when the application in the

prescribed form by fifth respondent was for allotment of

plot at Sector 23A, there was no justification for

allotting the plot at Sector 51 to fifth respondent. It was

5

submitted that the appellant fulfilled the

eligibility/preference criteria specified in the

advertisement for allotment of the plot.

8. Learned counsel for the State and HUDA submitted that

a fresh advertisement was issued in the newspapers on

7.7.2005 extending the date for making applications till

20.7.2005 and the application dated 18.7.2005 given by

fifth respondent sought allotment of the plot in Sector 51

and therefore the fifth respondent was an applicant for the

plot at Sector 51 also. The fifth respondent submitted that

it had applied for the alternative plot, that is plot at

Sector 51 in pursuance to the re-advertisement on 7.7.2005

and therefore the allotment was legal.

9. Even though the application of fifth respondent for

the plot at Sector 51 was not in the prescribed form, the

allotment was made as long back as on 27.9.2005 and the

fifth respondent has constructed and running the hospital

even from 2007. The appellant filed the writ petition only

on 2.4.2007, nearly one and a half years after the

allotment. In the circumstances, the High Court was

justified in not interfering with the allotment that was

6

made to the fifth respondent. We find no reason to

interfere with the decision of the High Court.

10. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that though there were several applications,

ultimately, all other applications were withdrawn, and

there were only two applications for the two plots, that

is, appellant for hospital plot at Sector 51 and fifth

respondent for hospital plot at Sector 23A. Learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that the plot at Sector 51

having been allotted to the fifth respondent, HUDA ought to

have at least allotted the plot at Sector 23A to appellant.

The appellant submitted that it was ready and willing to

accept the plot at Sector 23A on `as is where is basis',

irrespective of the site condition. It is also submitted

that the alternative prayer for allotment of the plot at

Sector 23A made in the writ petition, was not considered by

the High Court.

11. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had made

a valid application for allotment and it was improperly

rejected on account of HUDA allotting the plot applied for

by the appellant to the fifth respondent (even though its

application was for a different plot), HUDA may consider

7

the request of the appellant for allotment of the hospital

plot at Sector 23A on such terms as it deems fit, as per

its rules and regulations in accordance with law.

12. With the said observations, this appeal is disposed of.

.........................................J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ............................................J. January 19, 2011. (A K Patnaik)